Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Seahorse Mercantile Company (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 304 Taxman 277 (SC) Editorial : Seahorse Mercantile Company (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025)172 ITR 162 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice- Order of High Court set aside in view of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal [2024]301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46(SC) final assessment order was quashed only for purpose of enabling assessee to raise all objections and contentions vis-a-vis impugned notices.[S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 136]

Monish Gajapati Raju Pusapati v. AUITD (2025) 304 Taxman 382/344 CTR 165 / 248 DTR 17 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Non application of mind-Notice was quashed. [S. 135A,292B, Art. 226]

Amjad Ahmed Shaikh v. ITO (2025) 304 Taxman 377 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice -Dead person-Department had knowledge of demise of assessee -Not bind legal representative- Notice and order quashed.[S.147, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Dy. CIT v. Sterlite Technologies Ltd. (2025) 304 Taxman 345 (SC) Editorial : Sterlite Technologies Ltd v.Dy.CIT (2023) 152 taxxmann.com 381/ (2024) 462 ITR 457 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment -Amalgamation-Notice issued to non-existent company- Order is non-est and void- SLP of revenue dismissed. [S. 147, Art. 136]

Osstem Implant India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 304 Taxman 686 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment -With in four years- Cash credits-Cash deposits-Demonetisation-Re assessment notice was held to be justified-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 68, 148, Art. 226]

PCIT v. East Delhi Leasing (P.) Ltd. (2025) 304 Taxman 705 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment -Cash credits-Reason to believe-Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) -Burden of proof-Tribunal could not have applied the principle enunciated by court in criminal case to discharge of burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt-Order of Tribunal set aside. [S. 68, 148, 260A]

GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 304 Taxman 350 (Bom.)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Sale promotion expenses incurred on doctor -Since there was no failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, reopening notice was quashed.[S. 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Madhuri Sameer Gokhale v. NFAC (2025) 304 Taxman 359 (Bom.)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Faceless Assessment Standard Operating Procedure -Natural justice-No fresh tangible material-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed-Cash credits [S. 68, 144, 144B(6)(xi), 148, Art. 226]

Tata Communications Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 304 Taxman 476 (Bom)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Transfer pricing-Arms’ length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Gurantee fees- Pending before Tribunal- Court held that the Assessing Officer was debarred from initiating reassessment proceedings on that very issue -Re assessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S.92C, 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Concentrix Services India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 304 Taxman 211 (Bom.)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Business expenditure -Premium paid on securities-The Assessing Officer had not disclosed which material facts, according to him, were not fully and truly disclosed by assessee for relevant assessment year. Accordingly the notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 37(1), 148, Art. 226]